coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Kaunas.
5.  The applicant was a director of a holding company.
6.  In 1994 the applicant became a suspect in a criminal case of fraud.
7.  By investigator's decisions of 29 October 1994, 13 and 23 August 1996 the applicant's property was seized.
8.  On 27 August 1996 the applicant was charged with unlawful financial activities, fraud, and breaching the currency and securities regulations. Four other persons were charged as his accomplices. It was suspected that the co-accused had misappropriated large sums of money which had been deposited by private persons and companies. More than hundred victims were identified.
9.  On 15 October 1998 the Kaunas City District Court convicted the applicant, sentencing him to four years' imprisonment under strict regime. The applicant was arrested in open court.
10.  On 22 March 1999 the Kaunas Regional Court amended the judgment, acquitting the applicant of some charges and reducing the sentence to two years' imprisonment.
11.  On 30 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts' judgments due to various procedural irregularities. It was established that the applicant had not been given access to the case file, and that the reasoning in the judgments was too vague. The case was returned for fresh examination. The applicant's detention was replaced by an obligation to stay in his place of residence.
12.  On 25 October 1999 the Kaunas City District Court returned the case for an additional pre-trial investigation. On an unspecified date, the case was transmitted to the court for trial.
13.  On 5 January 2004 the Kaunas City District Court again decided to remit the case for additional investigatory measures.
14.  On 25 March 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the decision, ordering the first instance court to proceed to trial.
15.  On 22 June 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision.
16.  On 3 December 2004 the Kaunas City District Court terminated the criminal proceedings because the statutory time-limit for prosecution had lapsed. The civil claims against the applicant and the co-accused were left unexamined. The court also lifted the seizure of the applicant's property.
17.  The applicant appealed against the decision to terminate the proceedings on procedural basis, arguing that he should have been acquitted. By a final ruling of 10 November 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to examine the appeal as the applicant had missed the time-limit for lodging it.
18.  The applicant also brought an action for damages, alleging a judicial error resulting in his imprisonment under the strict regime. His action was rejected as unsubstantiated by the Panevėžys Regional Court on 30 September 1999, the Court of Appeal on 23 November 1999, and finally the Supreme Court on 22 March 2000.
5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ig.
6.  On 9 May 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) against two hunting clubs seeking damages in the amount of 557.20 euros sustained in a car accident, caused by a roe deer.
7.  Between 9 February 2001 and 31 August 2005 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or requests for a hearing.
8.  During the proceedings the court appointed one expert and held three hearings
9.  At the last hearing, on 22 March 2007, the court delivered a judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 April 2007.
4.  In 1997 the officers of the Vilnius City tax inspectorate investigated the applicant's declaration and payment of taxes. On 31 October 1997 they drew up a report in which the applicant was ordered to pay a sum of 906,566 Lithuanian litai (LTL; 262,444 euros (EUR)). The sum was comprised of LTL 457,139 (EUR 130,155) in tax arrears and interests, and LTL 449,427 (EUR 132,289) in fines.
5.  The applicant company contested the tax authorities' decisions before the Commission on Tax Disputes, a pre-trial tax-dispute settlement institution, which on 27 July 1999 partly granted its appeal and lowered the amount of fine to be paid to LTL 129,986 (EUR 37,644).
6.  On 19 August 1999 the tax authorities decided to seize some of the applicant company's property to secure the payment of tax arrears and penalties. The seizure remained in force until 28 September 2004.
7.  On 15 June 2001 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly granted the applicant company's appeal.
8.  On 13 September 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the lower court's decision. It ordered the State tax inspectorate to freshly examine the tax dispute. It was established that the company, in breach of accounting rules, had failed to keep proper book-keeping records and therefore the tax authorities could not properly establish the tax base directly relying on the company's documents. The court concluded that in assessing the tax arrears the authorities could have recourse to the indirect method for establishing the tax base (Mokesčio bazės netiesioginio nustatymo metodas), when as a source of information the tax authorities rely on the financial documents of other companies, that the applicant company had business transactions with. The indirect method for establishing the tax base came into force by the Government's regulation of 3 September 1998.
9.  Between October 2001 and March 2004 the tax authorities conducted several new investigations of the company's tax payment records. Having had recourse to the indirect method for establishing the tax base, on 24 March 2004 the inspectors adopted a new decision as to the tax arrears and penalties which the applicant company was liable to pay, including those for the accounting years 1994-97.
10.  On 10 February 2005 the Commission on Tax Disputes upheld the tax authorities' decision.
11.  On 19 May 2005 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant company's appeal as not founded.
12.  On 4 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court's decision.
5.  The applicants were born in 1956 and 1982 and live in Maribor.
6.  On 10 March 1997 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 8,202.697 Slovenian tolars (SIT, approximately 34,000 euros) for the death of a family member in a car accident.
7.  Between 25 August 1997 and 6 March 2000 the applicants lodged fourteen preliminary written submissions and requests that a date be set for a hearing.
8.  On 7 April 2000 a hearing was held and the first-instance court delivered a partial judgement. All three defending parties appealed.
9.  On 27 September 2001 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) delivered a judgment upholding the appeal in part. An appeal on points of law was lodged against the rejected part of the appeal by one of the defending parties.
10.  On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) rejected the appeal on points of law and the proceedings continued before the first-instance court.
11.  On 19 September 2005 the Celje District Court delivered a judgment upholding the applicants' claim in part. An appeal was lodged.
12.  On 7 February 2007 the Celje Higher Court issued a judgment upholding the appeal in part. An appeal on points of law was lodged.
13.  On 7 June 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the appeal on points of law in part and changed the second-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicants on 29 June 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Niš.
5.  Following the applicant's arrest in 1999 and detention in 2000, there were two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him. By 17 February 2004 the applicant was convicted for the crimes charged with.
6.  On 24 November 2005, in view of all applicant's convictions and sentences, the competent domestic court imposed a single sentence (jedinstvena kazna zatvora) against the applicant. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment.
7.  It would appear that the applicant served incarceration alternating between Požarevac-Zabela Correctional Institution and Niš Penitentiary.
8.  The applicant's letters to the District Courts in Kraljevo and Šabac, the Supreme Court, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Serbian Ministry of Justice, of 4 March 2004, 15 March 2004, 31 March 2004, 13 April 2004, 7 October 2004, 3 December 2004, 10 September 2005, 26 September 2005 and 25 October 2005, all bore prison stamps dated 4 March 2004 (24-2879/2004), 15 March 2004 (24-3211/2004), 1 April 2004 (24-4105/2004), 13 April 2004 (24-4557/2004), 7 October 2004 (1-713-3064/2004), 3 December 2004 (713-12568/2004), 10 September 2005 (1-713-1965/2005), 26 September 2005 (1-071-2172/2005) and 25 October 2005 (1-071-2419/2005), respectively.
9.  The Supreme Court's letter of 25 March 2004, addressed to the applicant, bore the prison stamp of 31 March 2004 and registration number 1-713-4038/2004. Furthermore, the decisions of the District Court in Šabac of 25 November 2004, the Supreme Court of 8 February 2005, as well as the District Court in Kraljevo of 23 August 2005 and 24 November 2005, also bore the prison stamps dated 1 December 2004 (713-12391/2004), 18 April 2005 (713-4624/2005), 7 September 2005 (713-9801/2005) and 5 December 2005 (713-13783/2005), respectively.
10.  The applicant's letter of 26 April 2004, sent to the Court, bore the prison stamp dated 26 April 2004, as well as registration number 24-5086/2004.
11.  In its own letter of 22 December 2004, inter alia, the Court's Registry therefore informed the applicant in Serbian of the said stamp, assuming that he may not have been aware of it.
12.  In his subsequent letter of 18 January 2005, the applicant acknowledged that his letter addressed to the Court had born the prison stamp and stated that he would like to additionally complain about the State's ongoing interference with his correspondence. This letter did not bear any prison stamp or registration number.
13.  In his letter of 24 November 2005, the applicant informed the Court that, as of 1 November 2005, prisoners were allegedly allowed to send their letters without leaving them opened to be stamped by the prison authorities.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant lodged a claim with the Kominternivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kominternivskyy Court”) against her brother. She sought the annulment of her father’s will.
6.  On 26 November 2001 the Kominternivskyy Court left the claim without examination because the parties had failed to attend.
7.  On 14 January 2002 the applicant lodged the same claim with the Kominternisvkyy Court. On the same date the court allowed the applicant’s request for securing the claim and seized the respondent’s property.
8.  On 24 November 2008 the Kominternivskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated.
9.  On 12 December 2008 the applicant appealed against the judgment. On 12 January 2009 the Khrakiv Regional Court of Appeal left the appeal without examination as lodged out of time.
10.  On 12 August 2009 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in cassation, which she had to resubmit on one occasion in order to comply with procedural requirements, quashed the decision of 12 January 2009 and sent the case for examination to the Court of Appeal.
11.  On 14 October 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s appeal on the merits, after she had rectified certain shortcomings in her appeal. The court of appeal quashed the judgment of 24 November 2008, finding that the case had not been duly examined by the first-instance court and remitted the case for fresh examination.
12.  The case is currently pending before the first-instance court.
13.  In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court, on 1 June 2004 and 15 March 2006 the applicant supplemented her claims. There were three expert examinations ordered on the applicant’s request and the proceedings were accordingly suspended for a total period of approximately eight months. The hearings were adjourned twenty-two times because of the applicant’s failure to appear or on her requests. On thirty-two occasions the hearings were adjourned because of the other participants’ failure to appear and of the judge’s absence or for technical reasons.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Nikopol, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.
5.  On 22 December 1987 the Nikopol Court found the applicant guilty of violating road traffic rules and sentenced her to a fine and withdrawal of her driving licence for three years. It allowed the civil claim of the victim R. and obliged the applicant to pay him a certain amount in compensation.
6.  On 16 February 1988 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 22 December 1987 as regards a part of R.’s claim for compensation, which did not concern the damaged parts of his car (see paragraph 7 below). It found that that part of the claim could be determined within the framework of civil proceedings. The remainder of the judgment of 22 December 1987 was upheld.
7.  In July 1990 the applicant lodged a claim with the Nikopol Court for recovery of property from R. She sought recovery of the parts of the R.’s car (the damaged car body) which had been replaced by new ones at her expense.
8.  Between July 1990 and September 1997 the case was re-examined on four occasions.
9.  On 2 September 1997 the Nikopol Court ordered R. to pay the applicant 1,260.85 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] (UAH) in compensation for the value of the property claimed and court expenses.
10.  In the course of the proceedings the car maintenance service joined the case as a co-respondent.
11.  On 20 October 1997 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 September 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
12.  On 7 December 1999 the Nikopol Court ordered an expert examination in the case.
13.  On 12 June 2000 the Nikopol Court allowed the applicant’s claims against R. On 17 July 2000 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 June 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
14.  On 28 January 2003 the Nikopol Court allowed the applicant’s claims against R.
15.  On 22 May 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 28 January 2003 and discontinued proceedings in the case. It found that the issue of compensation for damage caused to the vehicle had been determined in the course of the criminal proceedings and that the applicant should have raised the claim within those proceedings. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 22 May 2003.
16.  In the course of the civil proceedings the applicant once requested the court to postpone a hearing. She also lodged requests for an expert examination, for experts to be summoned and for certain documents to be joined to the case. The respondent in the applicant’s case failed to appear before the court on twelve occasions.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the village of Solontsievka, Kharkiv Region, Ukraine.
5.  On 15 March 1998 the applicant’s husband, who worked as an electrician at the construction site, died as a result of a work-related accident. On 10 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv against a joint stock company “T.”(“the company”) claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his death.
6.  On 15 September 1998 the case was transferred to the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv, which on 24 January 2001 allowed in part the applicant’s claims.
7.  On 24 April 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court[1] upheld this judgment. It became final.
8.  On 21 June 2001 the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure entered into force. They provided a right to lodge a cassation appeal within a three-month period with the Supreme Court against court decisions adopted before 21 June 2001 and which had entered into force before that date. On 19 July 2001 the company lodged an appeal in cassation.
9.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court.
10.  In the course of the proceedings before the first instance court three other companies and the local department of the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”) were joined as co-defendants.
11.  On 10 March 2006 the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv found in part for the applicant. The court awarded her, inter alia, UAH 68,648.34 (about EUR 11,366) to be paid by the Fund.
12.  The Fund appealed against that judgment; however, on 24 October 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal declined its appeal as lodged out of time. The Fund appealed in cassation. On 13 December 2007 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, quashed that decision and remitted the matter of the admissibility of the appeal for a fresh consideration.
13.  On 5 November 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal by the Fund and ruled that the above amount of UAH 68,648.34 should be paid by the company and not by the Fund. It upheld the remainder of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Malyn, the Rivne Region.
5.  On 25 December 2003 the prosecutors started criminal investigations concerning infliction of a bodily injury on Z.
6.  On 21 January 2004 the applicant was accused of that crime and had to give an undertaking not to abscond.
7.  On 2 March 2004 the pre-trial investigations were completed.
8.  On 10 March 2004 the case was sent to the Mlyniv Court for trial.
9.  On 18 April 2008 the Mlyniv Court found the applicant guilty of the crime of which he had been accused and sentenced him to one year of liberty restriction. By the same decision it amnestied the applicant.
10.  On 16 December 2008 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal, which he had to resubmit on one occasion in order to comply with the procedural requirements, quashed the judgment of 18 April 2008 and remitted the case for a fresh reconsideration to the first-instance court.
11.  On 29 December 2009 the Mlyniv Court terminated proceedings as time-barred.
12.  On 23 February 2010 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 29 December 2009 and remitted the case for re-consideration to the first-instance court. It found that the applicant’s right to defence had been breached and that the applicant had not consented to the termination of the criminal proceedings against him.
13.  The case is still pending before the first-instance court.
14.  In the course of the proceedings the hearings were adjourned once because of the applicant’s failure to appear, once on his request because of his illness, eight times because of the failure of the applicant’s representative to appear before the court and on two occasions the hearings were adjourned to give the applicant and/or his representative a possibility to study the case-file. The applicant had lodged four requests for withdrawal of the judges. Between May 2004 and February 2006 four hearings were scheduled, none of which was held. Between 25 December 2006 and 14 November 2007 three hearings were scheduled and two hearings were held at intervals of approximately five months.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sosnovyy Bor in the Leningrad Region.
6.  On 20 May 2001 the applicant was arrested. On 23 May 2001 he was placed in detention.
7.  By judgment of 6 September 2001 the Sosnovyy Bor Town Court of the Leningrad Region convicted him of robbery and sentenced him to five years and three months' imprisonment. On 27 March 2002 the Leningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and ordered that the case be remitted for an additional investigation.
8.  On 8 August 2002 the Town Court again convicted the applicant of robbery. It sentenced him to four years and eight months' imprisonment. The applicant brought an appeal.
9.  On 11 February 2004 the Regional Court held an appeal hearing. By a decision of the same date, it changed the crime's qualification and upheld the rest of the trial court's judgment.
10.  In the period from 30 May 2001 to 2 March 2004 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg.
11.  The applicant submitted that he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that the prisoners had had to take turns to sleep. Besides, his cells had been dirty and had lacked ventilation. He also submitted that the food had been of poor quality.
12.  According to the Government's submissions, the applicant was held in following cells:
(a)  cell no. 840 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees;
(b)  cell no. 844 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees;
(c)  cell no. 941 that measured 21,367 square metres and accommodated thirteen detainees;
(d)  cell no. 859 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees.
13.  The Government conceded that the cells had been “overcrowded”. They pointed out, however, that the applicant at all times had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bed linen and that there had been enough space to move around and to do exercises in the cells.
14.  They further submitted that the cells had been naturally and artificially ventilated and lit. The average air temperature in winter had been +18ºC and in summer +22ºC. The cells had been equipped with heating devices and a dining table. Toilet facilities had been separated from the cells' living area by a partition of 1.5 m in height. The applicant had never complained to the authorities of any insects or rodents.
15.  The food had been of a proper quality. The applicant had never been limited in fresh water. He had had a possibility of taking a daily one-hour walk. As to the medical assistance, he had undergone various medical examinations and had been treated against tuberculosis. The appropriate treatment had resulted in the favourable dynamics of his disease.